Let me pull out my own salt shaker, and not just for my margarita, I do not necessarily believe the Democratic Congress will pursue the defunding option I favor. Heck, you could even say I think it is improbable. But it is much less far fetched than the idea that 17 Republicans in the Senate will vote to remove President Bush and Vice President Cheney. That is simply delusion. If we are going to keep our salt shakers handy, then removal of Bush and Cheney should not even be discussed. It is never going to happen.
Could 218 House Democrats possibly agree to NOT fund after a date certain? I think it is possible. Not probable. But possible.
That said, I think Kagro's piece is fair in its skepticism, even though I disagree with him. This part in particular does not make sense to me:
In truth, though, there's no logical distinction between the right the president claims to defy legislation directing combat operations and any right he might claim to continue funding those operations in the face of a refusal by Congress to appropriate funds.
Actually, there is all the difference in the world. It is one thing to be able misuse appropriated funds. It is is entirely different, indeed, impossible, to use funds that do not exist. What Kagro describes here is misuse of appropriated funds:
Yet there are other hurdles standing in the way of such a plan, if it exists. The Iraq occupation is an enormously expensive operation, costing on the order of $10 billion monthly. That money, presumably, would have to come from somewhere. And even though Dick Cheney still claims among the presidential portfolio the otherwise-discredited powers of budgetary impoundment (thanks again, Charlie), it would be no mean feat to find and shuffle $10 billion monthly.
It would be no mean feat? It would be impossible. There is no loose 10 billion dollars lying around. What's Bush gonna do? Cancel all the defense contracts? Raid the Social Security Trust
Fund? Default on the Nation's debt? Not pay Halliburton? Here Kagro grasps at straws. This is simply an impossibility.
This is taking skepticism to delusion, the reverse mirror of his belief in possible removal of Bush and Cheney.
Guess what? I desire removal of Bush and Cheney too. But I know that it is not going to happen. Knowing that, I look for ways that we can check Bush and end the Debacle that are within the realm of the possible.
But like Kagro:
None of this should be taken as expressing my opposition to defunding impeachment and removal as an option. There are potential insurmountable hurdles to making it work, of course . . .
And because there are insurmountable hurdles, I think it is a waste of time to discuss it. In any event, good to see Kagro abandon his negativity towards the not funding option.